It wasn't just Wilson and Armstead. It was signing Amendola, losing Danny Woodhead, and letting Wes Welker go to your biggest threat in the AFC. Just a terrible offseason performance by BB the GM. Compare and contrast what BB did to what Elway did in Denver. It's the main reason why the Patriots were beaten by the Broncos. Denver had some serious injuries too (Ryan Clady, Von "Roids" Miller).

[/QUOTE]

I see your point. I think letting Woodhead go had to happen. it was Vereen's time to take the role. saves money that too.

Letting WW go to Denver was bad no doubt, BB got lucky JE11 didnt get hurt and had the year he did.

They did have significant injuries but none compared to ours...

they had Miller, Clady, Wolfe and couple guys nicked up missed games here and there .

we had Mayo, Wilfork, Kelly, Gronk, Vollmer, Vereen all miss many games. Spikes played hurt, Dobson, Talib and Dennard couldnt stay healthy either

I thought it was obvious! My god are people dumb here. It's like this is their first rodeo watching BB work as a GM.

The second they drafted Vereen it was Woodhead insurance and with Vereen's outstanding postseason last year, Woodhead was absolutely gone. I said it at the time on this board. Woodhead will help train Vereen and Woodhead is then gone. Duh.

BB is not going to keep multiple scatbacks on a roster at RB. It's just not going to happen.

Vereen is a better player than Woodhead. People just fall in love with that white guy overachiever thing here and then overrate the player.

Happened with Welker and Woodhead.

yep, agree exactly. Vereen was drafted as Woody's replacemnt. keeping two scats is dumb and waste of a roster spot.

and Bolden could play a decent scat back if he had too actually. but he's still on the team becuase he is a good special teamer too

It sucks his knee sprain (assuming) never really got right this year. I don't know. I'd love to see him take over the lead back role with the back up Ridley and Blount as a guy you can use in the second half to wear teams out.

Vereen is your strategic scatback or a back you use on those designed/scripted mid game, wrinkle drives where you go 4 wide and one lone back, etc.

Bolden is very good, IMO. He has good vision, has some power, stays low through the line, can get outside and is a good receiver, IMO. He's not Vereen level, but he can catch the ball and move with it.

[/QUOTE]

yeah, i really like Bolden but i think, minus the fumbling, RIdley is our best lead back. if blount walks we would be fine with Ridley/Bolden and Vereen as scat then pull up someone from the PS

The question was why we had 4 million in cap space opposed to Denver's 6.6, I think I answered that pretty well. Denver spent more, they added better players. We didn't spend as much and the players we brought in because they were cheaper, didn't work out, therefore we had to go out and sign more guys who won't be here next year either. It's kind of like a viscous little cycle. Thirteen teams spent more actual money than us, that's good with you, right? Yet our actual ticket prices are the highest in the NFL...it's good business, it sure is. See Kraft is smart, he knows what he is doing even if you don't. You sure you worked in business? Because if you did you'd realize it's no longer about winning around here - it was once, but those days are long gone...now I know you'll say you're just fine with that and it's all Brady's fault anyway, but I expect more than that.

Yesterday Kraft said he could go for it every year if he wanted to, no one is asking for that, but once in a while would be nice.

You love Brandon Lloyd - even compared his numbers to Jerry Rice (lol) - well why wasn't Lloyd here this year? Because he was too expensive! Do you think Lloyd could of helped this team? Honest question, do you? Because you've praised the guy for over a year. Now what would Lloyd of cost this team this year? We could of afforded him. And don't say we released him because he was a head case, it was reported we reached out to him after we cut him to come back at a lower number. It's always about the budget around here. Always. Patriot Place is expensive, have you seen that place? No you haven't. There is vacancy signs on the windows - Monday through Saturdays is a ghost town there - that place is a big reason why we are so concerned with budgets now.

The total money spent really doesn't matter. I understand you think Denver made better choices on where they spent, and that they have less dead money, $11.9 mil vs. $16.6 for the Pats. Good for them. But you sidestepped the question, what is "going for it"? How do you know if a team is going for it vs. a team that is not.

Regardless of how the money was spent (that's a separate discussion, which is ongoing at any given time on this board in about a dozen threads), the bottom line is the Pats spent all but $4 mil of their available pool of money and Denver spent all but $6.6 mil. But it's been said that Denver is going for it and the Pats are not. How does that work?

It would seem to me that having more dead money would mean you're spending plenty, just made some mistakes - but I don't care about that right now. I'm just trying to understand this notion of "going for it."

I like Ridley, but they don't throw to him. It also seems like he needs a hole given to him for him to get his second cut do to do damage. He really reminds me of Kevin Faulk.

I just don't think you could tell either guy that they're getting 15 carries minimum and for them to look as good as they would with maybe 8 carries and some targets in the air on designed check downs, some swing passes or screens.

Bolden hits the hole fast, but also shows good patience when needed as well. Blount is good in this are also.

I think Rid hits the hole better than any of the backs. Blount needs a hole wider than a bus for him to do actual damage. I didn't like the way he ran in previous years and early this year. The o-line was the biggest reason for his huge games also his size was unstoppable at the second level.

If Blount cant find the second level quick he dances and reminds me of Maroney.

The question was why we had 4 million in cap space opposed to Denver's 6.6, I think I answered that pretty well. Denver spent more, they added better players. We didn't spend as much and the players we brought in because they were cheaper, didn't work out, therefore we had to go out and sign more guys who won't be here next year either. It's kind of like a viscous little cycle. Thirteen teams spent more actual money than us, that's good with you, right? Yet our actual ticket prices are the highest in the NFL...it's good business, it sure is. See Kraft is smart, he knows what he is doing even if you don't. You sure you worked in business? Because if you did you'd realize it's no longer about winning around here - it was once, but those days are long gone...now I know you'll say you're just fine with that and it's all Brady's fault anyway, but I expect more than that.

Yesterday Kraft said he could go for it every year if he wanted to, no one is asking for that, but once in a while would be nice.

You love Brandon Lloyd - even compared his numbers to Jerry Rice (lol) - well why wasn't Lloyd here this year? Because he was too expensive! Do you think Lloyd could of helped this team? Honest question, do you? Because you've praised the guy for over a year. Now what would Lloyd of cost this team this year? We could of afforded him. And don't say we released him because he was a head case, it was reported we reached out to him after we cut him to come back at a lower number. It's always about the budget around here. Always. Patriot Place is expensive, have you seen that place? No you haven't. There is vacancy signs on the windows - Monday through Saturdays is a ghost town there - that place is a big reason why we are so concerned with budgets now.

The total money spent really doesn't matter. I understand you think Denver made better choices on where they spent, and that they have less dead money, $11.9 mil vs. $16.6 for the Pats. Good for them. But you sidestepped the question, what is "going for it"? How do you know if a team is going for it vs. a team that is not.

Regardless of how the money was spent (that's a separate discussion, which is ongoing at any given time on this board in about a dozen threads), the bottom line is the Pats spent all but $4 mil of their available pool of money and Denver spent all but $6.6 mil. But it's been said that Denver is going for it and the Pats are not. How does that work?

It would seem to me that having more dead money would mean you're spending plenty, just made some mistakes - but I don't care about that right now. I'm just trying to understand this notion of "going for it."

Going for it is when there are let's say three safeties available..a Dashon G., Steven Gregory and let's say a Pollard...and then you come away with Gregory instead of Goldson. Now you did this to save money - you did this because actual cash spent was something you wanted to keep at a certain level. Then over the course of three years you end up spending a second round pick on a safety, a third round pick on a safety and then sign another safety in free agency...all with the sole purpose of trying to find a better safety than the one you saved all that money on. In the end you may of saved yourself money, but then again you also had to waste resources to fill that need (when you have other needs as well). So going for "it" is signing Goldson (or someone) and paying that guy...spreading that money out...paying that bonus it would be needed to acquire such a player and spreading that bonus out along the length of that contract. The bonus is the real money - it's the cash spent - it's what gets good players to sign.

I could do another comparison with Jonathan Fanene and Red Bryant - we had Bryant sitting in front of Belichick, but Bryant wanted to be paid...hence a major factor in us NOT getting him and us signing Fanene. Going for "it" would be us paying that contract and spreading it out...us paying that bonus. Do things like this hurt our future? Yes. Does signing the wrong guys and having to waste second round picks on the same position over and over hurt us? Yes, even more.

Going for it is spending, it's the out of pocket money that really hits an owner's wallet. It's not the favorable contracts that land you subpar players who you can cut and not have to worry about a dime of that cash coming out of your actual pocket (dead money). That's going for it...again it's not something you do every year, but in my opinioin it would of been a good idea a few years ago (I thought it was warranted) and I think it's a great idea now. What's the down side? The player you acquire could suck here. The player you spend that money on may decline in performance and you are stuck with him and the bonus/contract you spread out through his deal...it could potentially hurt you at some point..it also could win you a Super Bowl (see Giants, Pittsburgh, Ravens). I can live with a 8-8 season while we suffer through a season of paying for a few bigger contracts/salary cap hell. I would gladly do that for another Super Bowl, hell yes! What is the worst that could happen? We don't win a Super Bowl (which we haven't done in a decade) and then we end up with a top 12 pick because of our poor record? That's bad? That's so scary? No it isn't, what is scary is our owner is dead set against going over the budget, that is scary because Brady is not a guy who comes along very often...neither is Belichick.

It always appears like Ridley works so hard to hit that hole while Bolden just glides through it.

Ridley is good, but he's not as smooth as Bolden.

alright i will agree with that, thats true.

I'd still take Rid over Bolden

I agree, but bolden is a better player then he gets credit for on this board. I also agree with both of you that vareen was drafted as a woody upgrade(and is) so why pay woody another contract when vareen is making half of that to do a better job, plus you have ultra cheap bolden as a capable back up.

The question was why we had 4 million in cap space opposed to Denver's 6.6, I think I answered that pretty well. Denver spent more, they added better players. We didn't spend as much and the players we brought in because they were cheaper, didn't work out, therefore we had to go out and sign more guys who won't be here next year either. It's kind of like a viscous little cycle. Thirteen teams spent more actual money than us, that's good with you, right? Yet our actual ticket prices are the highest in the NFL...it's good business, it sure is. See Kraft is smart, he knows what he is doing even if you don't. You sure you worked in business? Because if you did you'd realize it's no longer about winning around here - it was once, but those days are long gone...now I know you'll say you're just fine with that and it's all Brady's fault anyway, but I expect more than that.

Yesterday Kraft said he could go for it every year if he wanted to, no one is asking for that, but once in a while would be nice.

You love Brandon Lloyd - even compared his numbers to Jerry Rice (lol) - well why wasn't Lloyd here this year? Because he was too expensive! Do you think Lloyd could of helped this team? Honest question, do you? Because you've praised the guy for over a year. Now what would Lloyd of cost this team this year? We could of afforded him. And don't say we released him because he was a head case, it was reported we reached out to him after we cut him to come back at a lower number. It's always about the budget around here. Always. Patriot Place is expensive, have you seen that place? No you haven't. There is vacancy signs on the windows - Monday through Saturdays is a ghost town there - that place is a big reason why we are so concerned with budgets now.

The total money spent really doesn't matter. I understand you think Denver made better choices on where they spent, and that they have less dead money, $11.9 mil vs. $16.6 for the Pats. Good for them. But you sidestepped the question, what is "going for it"? How do you know if a team is going for it vs. a team that is not.

Regardless of how the money was spent (that's a separate discussion, which is ongoing at any given time on this board in about a dozen threads), the bottom line is the Pats spent all but $4 mil of their available pool of money and Denver spent all but $6.6 mil. But it's been said that Denver is going for it and the Pats are not. How does that work?

It would seem to me that having more dead money would mean you're spending plenty, just made some mistakes - but I don't care about that right now. I'm just trying to understand this notion of "going for it."

Going for it is when there are let's say three safeties available..a Dashon G., Steven Gregory and let's say a Pollard...and then you come away with Gregory instead of Goldson. Now you did this to save money - you did this because actual cash spent was something you wanted to keep at a certain level. Then over the course of three years you end up spending a second round pick on a safety, a third round pick on a safety and then sign another safety in free agency...all with the sole purpose of trying to find a better safety than the one you saved all that money on. In the end you may of saved yourself money, but then again you also had to waste resources to fill that need (when you have other needs as well). So going for "it" is signing Goldson (or someone) and paying that guy...spreading that money out...paying that bonus it would be needed to acquire such a player and spreading that bonus out along the length of that contract. The bonus is the real money - it's the cash spent - it's what gets good players to sign.

I could do another comparison with Jonathan Fanene and Red Bryant - we had Bryant sitting in front of Belichick, but Bryant wanted to be paid...hence a major factor in us NOT getting him and us signing Fanene. Going for "it" would be us paying that contract and spreading it out...us paying that bonus. Do things like this hurt our future? Yes. Does signing the wrong guys and having to waste second round picks on the same position over and over hurt us? Yes, even more.

Going for it is spending, it's the out of pocket money that really hits an owner's wallet. It's not the favorable contracts that land you subpar players who you can cut and not have to worry about a dime of that cash coming out of your actual pocket (dead money). That's going for it...again it's not something you do every year, but in my opinioin it would of been a good idea a few years ago (I thought it was warranted) and I think it's a great idea now. What's the down side? The player you acquire could suck here. The player you spend that money on may decline in performance and you are stuck with him and the bonus/contract you spread out through his deal...it could potentially hurt you at some point..it also could win you a Super Bowl (see Giants, Pittsburgh, Ravens). I can live with a 8-8 season while we suffer through a season of paying for a few bigger contracts/salary cap hell. I would gladly do that for another Super Bowl, hell yes! What is the worst that could happen? We don't win a Super Bowl (which we haven't done in a decade) and then we end up with a top 12 pick because of our poor record? That's bad? That's so scary? No it isn't, what is scary is our owner is dead set against going over the budget, that is scary because Brady is not a guy who comes along very often...neither is Belichick.

Goldson??! LOL! TB is in cap hell! They just fired their GM.

Do you drink moron juice daily? Oh my good grief. There is a reason why these players take the highest bid and go to the worst team possible that is vying for their services, and then those teams suck.

Goldson and this contract. Bawhah

You bash Meriweather for years in here and then wanted Goldson with this contract:

They just fired everyone numb nuts, why do you think that is? Because they have no quarterback you moron! Are you telling me Goldson isn't a better safety than anyone we have here? Is that what you are telling me? Are you saying Gregory is a better player than Goldson? LOL! Bawahahaha!

Do you think it was better having Tavon Wilson, Adrain Wilson, Steven Gregory, and that kid from Rutgers over Goldson? You ever watch Goldson play? I guarantee dwarf Welker wouldn't be running around laying big hits on defensive backs if Goldson was out there. That's a guarantee, no doubt, money, death and taxes. It sooner or later takes good football players to win...guys that cost something. You wouldn't understand this as you like losing. You like praising average football players until they are shown the door (see Chung and many many others).

You don't understand football, that is clear. What a loser, Nissan Sentra driving fool you are.

And did you just compare Goldson to Merriweather? You magnificent idiot!! I get it! Merriweather>Goldson...according to our village idiot!

I agree, but bolden is a better player then he gets credit for on this board. I also agree with both of you that vareen was drafted as a woody upgrade(and is) so why pay woody another contract when vareen is making half of that to do a better job, plus you have ultra cheap bolden as a capable back up.

i think bolden is a very good RB when given the chances and was a find for UDFA.

and yep you have Rid, Vereen and Bolden all on rookie deals perfoming better than that. very cost effective those 3 are

I thought it was obvious! My god are people dumb here. It's like this is their first rodeo watching BB work as a GM.

The second they drafted Vereen it was Woodhead insurance and with Vereen's outstanding postseason last year, Woodhead was absolutely gone. I said it at the time on this board. Woodhead will help train Vereen and Woodhead is then gone. Duh.

BB is not going to keep multiple scatbacks on a roster at RB. It's just not going to happen.

Vereen is a better player than Woodhead. People just fall in love with that white guy overachiever thing here and then overrate the player.

Happened with Welker and Woodhead.

yep, agree exactly. Vereen was drafted as Woody's replacemnt. keeping two scats is dumb and waste of a roster spot.

and Bolden could play a decent scat back if he had too actually. but he's still on the team becuase he is a good special teamer too

Unless one is getting injured all the time then you need a proper backup. No Bolden is not a scat back, never will be. Bolden is closer to Ridley and Blount so why do we need 3 of those types but only 1 scat back who's injured a fair amount of time?

Unless one is getting injured all the time then you need a proper backup. No Bolden is not a scat back, never will be. Bolden is closer to Ridley and Blount so why do we need 3 of those types but only 1 scat back who's injured a fair amount of time?

yes, Bolden isnt a scat back but can play a decent one. he did it while Vereen was out, wasnt the same but not a total bust there.

and because if Woody was kept why pay him so much for him not doing so much? he was used a lot more in SD's offense than he would've been used here. he earned what he made in SD he wouldnt have done that here imo..

It always appears like Ridley works so hard to hit that hole while Bolden just glides through it.

Ridley is good, but he's not as smooth as Bolden.

alright i will agree with that, thats true.

I'd still take Rid over Bolden

I agree, but bolden is a better player then he gets credit for on this board. I also agree with both of you that vareen was drafted as a woody upgrade(and is) so why pay woody another contract when vareen is making half of that to do a better job, plus you have ultra cheap bolden as a capable back up.

Because he's playing half as much too

Bolden is more like Ridley and Blount and less like Woody and Vereen so what you are saying is essentially why pay for Kelly when we have Buchanan. Completely different roles on the team even though both play DL.

BTW does Rusty really think Bolden is better then Ridley? Really? Bolden is nothing more BJGE maybe even less. If he was better he wouldn't be healthy scratches from the team. He is an UDFA JAG that had a couple good runs in clean up duty and people got way to excited about him. Similar to how people got way to excited about Chris Jones after 6 coverage sacks thinking he was a DRoY canidate.

Unless one is getting injured all the time then you need a proper backup. No Bolden is not a scat back, never will be. Bolden is closer to Ridley and Blount so why do we need 3 of those types but only 1 scat back who's injured a fair amount of time?

yes, Bolden isnt a scat back but can play a decent one. he did it while Vereen was out, wasnt the same but not a total bust there.

and because if Woody was kept why pay him so much for him not doing so much? he was used a lot more in SD's offense than he would've been used here. he earned what he made in SD he wouldnt have done that here imo..

We signed Washington to a $1.2mil deal. Comparing cap numbers that's $.5mil less then Woody's cap hit this year. Appearently BB thought it was important enough to back up Vereen to give $1.2mil to Washington. Not sure why that $.5mil made such a huge difference when we knew Woody fit the system

We signed Washington to a $1.2mil deal. Comparing cap numbers that's $.5mil less then Woody's cap hit this year. Appearently BB thought it was important enough to back up Vereen to give $1.2mil to Washington. Not sure why that $.5mil made such a huge difference when we knew Woody fit the system

[/QUOTE]

im not speaking for BB but when giving 500K less to Washinton he probably thought ok that's our backup scat back AND this guy is a great KR! I have Vereen to play main scat back and Leon can be our reserve guy for him and be our KR and finally have a competent KR again and all for 500 K less.